Dr. Hart asked me why I reject “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” (IAOC). My answer to the question is simple: the most significant reason denying the IAOC is important to me is the odd recent insistence by some that confessing that formulation is necessary in order to maintain one’s Reformed credentials.
I will deny the IAOC with gusto as long as people keep insisting on binding my conscience with such a formulation. You see, I confess and embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 “Of Christian Liberty, and the Liberty of Conscience.” I believe that God alone is Lord of my conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and the commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship.
You ask me what I gain by denying the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Not much theologically. I just don’t think such a formulation is helpful and adequately summarizes the Biblical data. I certainly don’t think that the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone requires such a formulation. That’s all. I’m not sure why a denial of the IOAOC is inexorably linked with Shepherd’s project.
The real reason I deny it is because I’m being told that I must affirm it even though I do not find it in the Westminster Standards or in the Bible.
Perhaps a story will help.
In 1537, Peter Caroli, a Reformed minister at Lausanne, accused Calvin and Farel of Arianism. It seems that the Genevan Reformers were not using the precise Patristic terminology in their teaching about the deity of the Son and the Trinity. Their opponents wondered whether they were truly “orthodox” in their statements about the Trinity.
At a special synod, Caroli demanded that Calvin subscribe to the early church creeds. Calvin refused. No, that’s not a typo. He refused.
It is part of our Calvinian heritage to refuse to be bound by extrabiblical categories and terminology. The Bible has absolute priority over all traditional formulations, the Westminster standards included.
Consider Warfield’s discussion of this episode and its significance in his “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity” in The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 5, pp. 180-220.
Warfield says, “Calvin refused to subscribe to the ancient creeds at Caroli’s dictation, not in the least because he did not find himself in accord with their teaching, but solely because he was determined to preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men, subject in matters of faith to no other authority than that of God speaking in the Scriptures” (p. 207).
Beautiful. Freedom!
Calvin himself says, “I have long learned by experience, and that over and over again, that those who contend thus pertinaciously about terms, are really cherishing a secret poison” (Inst. 1.8.5).
But listen to what Warfield says and apply it mutatis mutandis to the current controversies in our circles:
“[Calvin’s] sole design was to make it apparent that Caroli’s insistence that only in words of these creeds could faith in the Trinity be fitly expressed was ridiculous” (p. 211).
“He [Calvin] considered it intolerable that the Christian teacher’s faith should be subjected to the authority of any traditional modes of statement, however venerable, or however true; and he refused to be the instrument of creating a precedent for such tyranny in the Reformed Churches by seeming to allow that a teacher might be justly treated as a heretic until he cleared himself by subscribing ancient symbols thrust before him by this or that disturber of the peace” (p. 208).
Wow. How the Reformed church has fallen. Fallen into the sterile trap of Westminster traditionalism. These days, in some quarters of the Presbyterian church, if you don’t define theological terms in exactly the same way as some branch of the Reformed tradition, you are a heretic.
Part of the problem is that we have so little theological imagination, not to mention intellectual honesty, that we cannot admit that the substance of a matter might be confessed using nontraditional words and categories. If someone is not speaking the language of the 17th century, defining terms like they did, that doesn’t mean they are not Reformed, or worse, heretics.
Maybe the most troubling example of this is when men are accused of denying salvation by grace because they do not use the precise language and categories of some branch of the Reformed tradition. Someone thrusts the words “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” in my face and says sign this or you deny the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone. I say, I won’t sign that. Presto! I’m an Arminian or worse.
No matter how loudly we protest that we don’t believe in salvation by works and that we do believe that we are saved by Christ’s righteousness alone, our traditionalist opponents accuse us of Arminianism or worse, and all because we won’t sign our names under their pet theological formulations.
Maybe we’re not right about our own doctrinal formulations. Maybe we misunderstand the Bible. We should all be open to correction from one another. But one thing we are doing, in good Calvinian fashion, is exegeting the Bible with the freedom that the Reformers won for the liberated churches of Protestantism. We want to go where the Bible leads us. That’s a good thing. We may be wrong in our exegesis. But that’s where the debate ought to be fought—at the level of biblical exposition, not subscription to idiosyncratic formulations no matter how venerable or traditional they may be.
If we are not careful, we will out do Rome in our Romanizing traditionalism. In some circles the Westminster standards seem to have become the infallible voice of the Reformed magisterium. If you deviate from the exact words, definitions, and formulations therein, or if you suggest that they might be corrected by the Bible, you may be hauled before a Reformed inquisition.
As the traditionalists are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails, perhaps a loud cry of “freedom!” now and then might be appropriate. Calvin would be proud.
Well, there’s the rebellious egophanic revolt of the protestant spirit turned loose. This is exactly the problem. As long as the battle is between small-minded dogmaticians who say “you will” and small-minded rebels who say “I won’t,” there is little hope for right order or health.
LikeLike
And I should add, that virtually every time such a stand-off occurs, it is better for the health of the order when the dogmaticians come out on top; though the winning of such a victory is often phyric as doing the dogmatic gymnastics necessitated by the rebellion is incredibly damaging in and of itself. Everyone loses.
LikeLike
I think part of the problem has been pointed to off and on: Biblical theology “versus” systematics. I don’t admit to that, being very much a lover of systematics myself. But I think what it points to is this, and I want to put on six set of gloves and be as circumspect and careful as I can in saying this: Not everyone in this debate is equally at home in the Bible. The Bible DOES have its own language. Contrary to modern evangelical views, the Bible is a consistent document, written in heiratic (not koine) Hebrew, a Temple language (see the work of Ullendorff), by people connected with the Temple. That’s true of the so-called New Testament (there’s no such thing, literarily) as well. The Bible is not a potpourri. The people who wrote it knew that they were adding to a corpus, and wrote in terms of that corpus.
To “get” the Bible you have to start at the beginning and learn the vocabulary (which is given in furniture, animals, rituals, blood and guts, hair, fire, water, incense, etc.). Sorry, all you “modern” people, but God chose to write in largely symbolic language, and YOU HAVE TO LEARN IT! You can’t “get” it by starting with the Pauline epistles, forcing them into a 17th century rationalistic mold as some kind of proto-Berkhof, and then trying to get the rest of the Bible. You have to start where Paul starts. When Paul says “flesh,” he has Leviticus in mind, where “flesh” is used 60+1 times.
But we have a problem: Huge mistranslations. The most commonly observed is the mistranslation of “Ascension” as “Burnt Offering.” But the worst is the mistranslation of Yahweh as “Lord.” Yahweh does not connote lord, king, sovereign, suzereign. That’s “Adonai,” literally “My Master,” the title that appears when Israel gets kingship in order to say that God is High King. Yahweh tells us when He gives us that name what it means: “Israel is My Son, My firstborn. Let My son go!” Yahweh is Abba, Father, mostly. There is no “Law” given by the “Lord” at Sinai. “Torah” means Instruction. There is a Father’s instruction. So I repent of my earlier strong theonomy, which I held before I’d become as familiar with the Bible as I now am. I’m a soft theonomist now.
This problem runs DEEEEEEEEP in Western theology. DEEEEEEEP. It’s the influence of Roman law paradigms. It’s the mistaken view that there are suzereignty treaties in the Bible. It’s “theologies of lordship” (sorry, my old pal John Frame). As much truth as there is in much of this tradition, it must be recast in more familial terms, more Biblical terms.
I offer these “radical” thoughts only as illustrations. I think there is a bit of Bibliophobia in the critics of “FV.” People not quite at home in the Bible, but very much at home in “active and passive” and “covenant of works” and other confessional language, may feel threatened by us “Biblicists.” For certain, the OPC, the PCA, and Mid-America Seminary all punted on the whole issue, hiding behind THEIR readings of the confessions rather than doing any dealing with the Bible at all.
I mean no insult. All of us have specialities. Dr. Hart is a fine historian, and since I wrote a paper on Nevin and Hodge (under Shepherd!!!) years ago, I like what he’s done. But I’m a Bible reader and teacher. Please allow me to offer into the Great Conversation what I have to offer. It’s really not a danger to anyone. Really. It’s not.
We’re not at war.
The Bible should be fun. I think it’s fun. I love taking a bath in it. I think God is a Happy God. I think He dances perichoretically all the time. I think we should lighten up and be happy about the Bible.
LikeLike
Jeff, this raises the question of my previous post… do you affirm the substance of what we are getting at when we speak of the imputation of the active obedience? Do you agree that we recieve the perfect righteousness of Christ? Are we just forgiven or positively righteous in Christ? Do we recieve all that belongs to Him?
Or does our obedience kick in where the forgiveness of sins ends?
LikeLike
Bill, I’m not Jeff, but I don’t know anyone in our circles who says what you ask in your last question – obedience kicks in to fill in after past sins are forgiven – or that we are anything less than righteous in Christ. Everyone affirms that we are given the status of RIGHTEOUS.
The issue has to do with the “apparatus” or “mechanics” of how that occurs. It is by IAO? Is it by union with Christ and sharing in the verdict the Father passed on the Son in the resurrection (which assumes the AO of Christ and implies a kind of IAO)? Or is it by some other mechanism?
Your question appears to assume that IAO is the only way to support the confession that we are “positively righteous in Christ,” but that assumption is the point at issue.
Forgive me if I missed the point. I haven’t read every last post on this subject.
LikeLike
Rev. Chellis, let me ask you: Do you see a problem with saying that we receive the totality of Jesus in His resurrection? I keep getting the idea that we are supposed to receive some kind of pre-resurrection, pre-glorification, yea pre-cross “righteousness.” I don’t believe that. I do believe that we are enfolded by mystical and marital union into the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ who is, of course, perfectly (maturely) righteous. But, I’m not sure that this is for “justification.” Justification, as I believe the WSC puts it, has to do with pardon. The “much more” of Romans 5 is what we in our ST think of as glorification, and that glory I receive in union with Jesus’ resurrection.
NOW: The Bible seems more fluid in its use of these terms, so that Jesus was “raised for our justification.” Here’s where Peter’s work comes into play. Here I’m speaking in terms of our conventions, I think. What I want to safeguard (here’s that apophatic negative theology again) is that I’m forgiven and pardoned ONLY because of Jesus’ death on the cross. (“It is NOT the case that there is anything else required for my forgiveness than the death of Jesus for me on the cross.”) His blamelessness qualified Him to be the perfect blood-sacrifice, to be sure. But I am justified and saved from hell by his DEATH FOR ME. Period.
But wonder of wonder, that’s not all. He also guarantees me the glory that Adam failed to come to. Adam did not come to the glorious sleep-death + resurrection promised in connection with the Tree of Knowledge. But Jesus did. After His first death for three hours under God’s wrath, after it was “finished,” He voluntarily died a second death at the Tree of Knowledge that immediately enthroned him, so that at this first breath of pentecost the representative of the Gentile rule confessed, “This man is the True King, the Son of God.” Jesus came rightly to the Tree of Knowledge and became glorious. In His resurrection I’m glorified. In His ascension I’m raised to God’s throne. In His session, I rule with Him. But none of that is part of pardon. All of that is the “much more.”
So yes indeed!! We are “forgiven AND positively righteous in Christ”! Amen. Alleluia. Hallelujah. We live our lives out of union with His glory. It is the glory of the Spirit that empowers us to new life. But His positive righteousness is mine not as some abstract transference of His pre-cross goodness to me, but of my union with Him in His glory.
As I wrote before, the Western tradition has not apprehended the power of glory, and hence not really phrased all this with as much Biblical precision as would be desirable. But what it has been getting at is all true.
Make sense? Or do you see a problem?
LikeLike
Rev. Chellis, I don’t have much to add to Peter’s answers. I’ve been puzzling over a couple of comments from others about the denial of the IAOC and Norman Shepherd. There appears to be some serious misunderstanding about NS’s theology. This seems to be behind much of it:
1) We get forgiven and justified (by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ),
2) and that puts us in some sort of neutral state with regard to positive righteousness,
3) so we have to add our own righteousness/obedience and thereby make up for what we didn’t get via the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.
That’s just nuts.
LikeLike
JMyers, thanks for the answer. But I have to admit I’m stunned that the debate over active obedience comes down to freedom of conscience. Isn’t a tad odd to cite the doctrines and commandments of men (WCF 20) to proclaim liberty from the doctrines and commandments of men? I would have also thought that concerns for the unity and peace of the church might keep one from insisting on his own interpretation as opposed to those of his brothers in the church.
So I wonder if more is involved here. Surely, Pastor Myers, wouldn’t you concede that your response has more the ring of rebellion than pastoral concern for the good of the church. That is, if truth is at stake, what is that truth (re: active obedience)? Or is it simply a case of your rights?
LikeLike
The good of the church is served by honesty to God’s Word.
LikeLike
J. Jordan said: The good of the church is served by honesty to God’s Word.
Yeah, that what my old Pastor in the PCUSA said. I thought SHE was wrong also.
LikeLike
Hart: “I would have also thought that concerns for the unity and peace of the church might keep one from insisting on his own interpretation as opposed to those of his brothers in the church.”
Myers: “The real reason I deny it is because I’m being told that I must affirm it even though I do not find it in the Westminster Standards or in the Bible.”
The spiritual rot runs deeper here than Hart supposes. It would be one thing if FVists like Myers were insisting on their own interpretation in the manner of Luther: “Here I stand, I can do no other.” But that is clearly not the case. Nowhere does Myers argue that IOAOC is contrary to scripture. Rather, he denies it precisely because his church affirms it. Luther’s humble stance is twisted into a prideful “here I stand, I could do other, but I prefer to stand on my autonomous rights.” Jeff admits he gains nothing but the preservation of rights which, frankly, are themselves nowhere taught in scripture (WCF Ch. 20 notwithstanding).
I remain sympathetic to some of FVs concerns and frustrations. I thought the PCA response did a lot of damage to the church. But this, to me, sums up the problem with the FV. Which is why the earlier discussions concerning tradition were so important.
Do the FVists here really fail to see how dangerous this completely unfettered, individualist, atomizing, modern doctrine of freedom of conscience is? I can’t imagine you pastor your churches along these lines.
Here’s a paradox: arguably, the denial of IOAOC and Shepherd’s work leading to FV exist as a way of dealing with creeping anti-nominanism. Yet when challenged, the FV defense is to cry “freedom, freedom, freedom!”
I’d say creeping anti-nominanism is a problem for both sides here. Each side tends to weild it against the other as it suits their rhetorical needs. This is typical of dicussions that occur inside of a decaying, crumbling, sick order. At some point, someone will have to find some true timbers to shore against oncoming ruin, because freedom by itself is not a timber.
We could do with a healthy dose of Eliot about now.
LikeLike
Caleb:
I think Jeff’s statement seemed more snarkey than it needs to be. But, I write just to note that he is saying that his Church does NOT teach it. He is not doing the raw biblicism here, he is resisting a attempt of the imposition and test of a new orthodoxy. While his example from Calvin gets mixed reviews from me, I think it made sense (from what I know) because Calvin’s point was that people were insisting upon mere verbal formulae, not upon what those very formulae taught. (I give it mixed reviews because of how guys like Reymond have attempted a new doctrine of the Trinity based upon Calvin’s apparent questioning of the language of the creeds on such points). In any case, there is a bit of disanalogy here. Meyers is not denying the teaching of the Westminster Confession – He signs on to the Confession! – But, he is insisting upon his freedom to hold to the Confession without asserting the IAOC. While a study committee of the OPC has emphasized the IAOC, I don’t believe that the PCA has enforced this doctrine upon her members, has she? And, its status in the OPC is probably not fully settled doctrine either (if the committee report was not adopted, just accepted, that is its status).
There is a bit of the Luther, “Here I stand,” involved; at least there is the Freedom of the Christian man. Zwingli’s reformation had something to do with eating Sausage on a Friday night, I believe.
But that leads to your point –
>
I think Jordan, et. al. would deny this unfettered individualism of which they stand convicted by you. But, I see your case. Nevertheless, let me anticipate a response to come to your penultimate paragraph:
>
First – Jordan would agree with your comment about a decaying, crumbling, sick order – not that he rejoices in it (he can speak for himself, and doubtless will), but he certainly has operated as if this is the case. He’s said such things himself. But, that’s secondary to my point –
You seem to be conflating antinomianism with either a.) anti-authoritarianism, or b.) questioning the tradition. There may be some small smidgen of (a.) amongst FVers, and ther is a good bit of (b.). But, there is mostly appeal from one aspect of the tradition to others, and appeal beyond the tradition to its ultimate source, the Scriptures.
Jesus challenging the Pharisees and Saducees, and the tradition when He repeatedly said, “You have heard it said…but I say unto you” is not anti-nomianism, but getting back to Moses and to the God who sent Moses. He did not come to destroy, but fulfill the Law, and to meet all the real needs of the tradition. He was a bar mitzvah, but not a son of the mistaken interpretation of the tradition.
Hence, Jesus appeals to Moses and the Prophets. He appeals against subordinate traditionalism, even though he generally upholds the authorities, and grants them some binding powers: Do what they say, not what they do for the scribes & pharisees sit in Moses’ seat! He is standing in the very authoritative position of at Teacher in Israel, against some other Teachers who are confusing the truth. The old order had become demonized, full of dead mens bones. So, yes, he challegned their false interpretations and legalistic impositions. He went back to basics.
Frankly, I remember being quite moved by the Machen statement from his deathbed. I have preached that very illustration, and have preached at least versions of the IAOC in the past (out of Psalm 32 and Romans 3, and elsewhere). I didn’t understand what the whole debate about the IAOC really involved until just now. I’m not a strong partizan on this issue either way – still listening and learning. But, I’ve been persuaded that it is not a sine qua non of confessional adherence. Jeff is not denying the Confession, or the Tradition. And, I don’t understand how you can call it anti-nomian unless you think that the Law and the Tradition are identical. Have you read Mathison’s book on Sola Scriptura (vs. Solo Scriptura), referenced in the discussion?
This element of the “FV” is part of, at worst, a “Conservative Revolution,” not an attempt at a radical redefinition of protestant and reformed theology. I think Jeff was just showing another element within the “Tradition” that supports his move. He was appealing to the radical nature of the Priesthood of Believers, the Freedom of the Christian Man, and the Sole final authority of Scripture. This all assumes that there is an exegetical case (as well as an historical and systematics case) for questioning the IAOC.
I thought I believed in the IAOC because I believed in the Active Obedience of Christ as pre-requisite to the Atonement. Hebrews is full of that teaching. But, I see what Jordan and Meyers are saying.
But, while the famous FV proponents (the FV movement leaders!) do challenge the Merit paradigm, and the merit aspect of the Covenant of Works, you are troubled by their questioning the necessity of affirming the IAOC because of how they do it:
>
Exactly – Meyers is not on the attack. He is on the defense. You’re a lawyer. The rules are different for the defense, are they not? You are the guy who called himself an almost anarchist Christian on your now defunct blog. I’m not sure what you meant to say there. Jeff is not insisting that the rest of the PCA, or the Reformed World at large adopt his views. He is insiting only that he has the freedom to retain his view.
While it is obvious that there are many anti-FV persons who believe that the Gospel is at stake in this question of the IAOC, I don’t believe you see it that way. I can’t even see Dr. Hart insisting upon that point (his concerns on this seem ecclesiological, not centrally theological). Is the tradition on this point so strong, or the Scriptures so clear, that you really want to call it anti-nomian when a fellow insists on his right to hold to a view which has been deemed (at least locally by his presbytery) to be within the confessional boundaries?
LikeLike
Tony wrote: “First – Jordan would agree with your comment about a decaying, crumbling, sick order – not that he rejoices in it (he can speak for himself, and doubtless will), but he certainly has operated as if this is the case.”
I do rejoice in it. Death has to precede resurrection. The rationalistic/stoic elements in Calvinism led it first into unitarianism, then into liberalism, and now into the kinds of traditionalistic idolatry we see in the OPC and the PCA. It’s high time this all died.
Jesus intends to disciple all nations. He’s going to do it whether we are part of the programme or not. The death of the Reformation paradigm, which has to happen in time and is happening now because of this rationalistic rot, is a good and necessary thing. We can be 100% certain that what comes next will be better and more powerful, without losing any of the true gains of the Reformation.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Jeff Meyers’s statement, spirit and letter. Why? Because of the First Word: You will have no other elohim before Me. There are other elohim, of course, such as the “powers that be” (a Greek paraphrase of the word elohim) in the epistles. We are to pay their taxes. We are to show respect to these elohim, whether governmental or natural (as in hurricanes, which I have to respect). But if someone says, “I demand that you put your first allegiance to one of these other elohim,” we are to say NO as loudly as possible. Just as Calvin did. Just as we so-called-FVers do and will continue to do in the face of the shibboliths enjoined upon us. We are not interested in such idolatry. And if (since?) the OPC and the PCA are now enforcing such idolatry, as it surely seems, then it is time for Christians to write “ichabod” on them and shake the dust off our feet.
LikeLike
Jeff, if Calvin would subscribe no creed, why did he write them?
LikeLike
Calvin doesn’t say he would not subscribe to any creeds. That’s not the point of the incident. You’re a historian, you know better than that.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t subscribe to any creeds or confessions. I do subscribe to the WCF (with some exceptions). But now I and others are being judged to be unfaithful to the WCF and to the Reformed tradition because we won’t subscribe to the EXTRA-confessional formulation about the IAOC.
And just to be clear: I don’t deny the active obedience of Christ. How many times do we have to say this? What I deny is that the accumulation of the merits earned by Jesus’ moral acts during his life are somehow imputed to my account. And I reject the IAOC formulation because I find no evidence for it whatsoever in the Bible or in the Westminster Standards to which I have subscribed.
Would someone please show me from the Bible where the merits of Jesus’ moral achievements are said to be imputed to me?
Back to Calvin. Calvin wrote creeds to help the church confess and apply the faith. The early Reformed creeds and confessions were never intended to be the final word and the binding tradition to which all subsequent ministers and churches must bow the knee and subscribe to without exception. Obviously.
Notice that the Creeds Calvin wrote are no longer in use. Hmm. They served their purpose for a time, but then better formulations were written by others. A bunch of people thought that something new and better was needed. Calvin didn’t write creeds that would become the new primary authority for the Reformed Churches. They were eventually superseded.
But something happened since the mid-17th century. The WCF has now become our Reformed Council of Trent. In flagrant violation of the principles laid down by the WCF itself about how Scripture is to be interpreted (WCF 1.10) how controversies are to be adjudicated (WCF 1.8, 10) we now idolatrously treat the WCF as the final Word.
LikeLike
JMyers, people have cited among various passages, Romans 5. I don’t think you’re buying that interpretation, which then takes us back to who interprets the Bible and whether councils and synods are an ordinance of God to which we are to be subject and whose authority we are not to deny by appealing to Christian freedom (WCF 20.4).
On your logic, what has superceded the Westminster Standards. I haven’t recalled news of a synod or council calling for a new confession of faith, unless you want to go to the CRC’s Testimony for Our Time. I wouldn’t go there. Talk about being dated.
LikeLike
So are you arguing that Romans 5 teaches that the merits of the moral achievements of Jesus are imputed to me? Are you thinking of Romans 5:18-21? There’s nothing about “imputation” in that passage. There’s nothing about “merit” in that passage. The only mention of “justification” has to do with the “one act of righteousness that leads to justification and life for all men” (v. 18).
Leaving aside the fact that it’s pretty clear that Paul in this passage has in view Jesus obedience in death, remember, we are not arguing about the necessity and importance of Jesus’ obedience. We are arguing about how his obedience leads to my justification and salvation.
What has superseded the Westminster Standards? Nothing. That’s precisely the problem.
LikeLike
JMyers, I’m no exegete, so I’m not claiming that my citation of Rom. 5 constitutes an argument. It is one of the places where the tradition has gone to affirm imputation, both of Adam’s sin and of Christ’s righteousness.
Anyway, most theological arguments require citing more than one passage. It does seem odd that James Jordan can wave his wand over Gen. 3 and produce “the gospel” and no one on the FV side bats an eye. But when FV is challenged by referring to specific passages, critics need to give precise interaction with specific words and phrases to show FV is wrong.
As I understand theological reasoning, a set of questions and answers get going and areon the table and the people doing the reasoning go to relevant passages in Scripture for answers. They haven’t typically asked a passage to say exactly, “the active obedience of Christ,” but have actually interpreted certain passages to mean phrases like that on the basis of the theological conversation leading up to the exegesis and on the basis of exegesis that tries to be responsible to the Bible’s meaning. We don’t find “two natures” and “one person” written down in the Bible. But we accept those phrases as biblical.
(By the way, this explanation is one indication of why I find biblicism so frustrating, and uneven biblicism downright annoying.)
So how do you, Jeff, think Christ’s obedience leads to your justification and salvation? What role does Christ’s active obedience play?
LikeLike
DGH
This admission dismays and alarms me and it fingers my problem with so much I read on Reformed blogs – long on Creeds, Confessions, and Calvin but short, painfully and embarrassingly short on the Canon.
If C21 Protestant Church leaders feel they can comment more confidently on a confession than on Scripture we have problems.
LikeLike
My two-fold answer to your last two questions:
1) What the WCF says, and
2) Read our “Joint Federal Vision Profession,” especially the section “Union with Christ and Imputation.”
LikeLike
JMyers, I’m still scratching my head. I see no reason why the denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ follows from the Union with Christ and Imputation paragraph of the statement. It may follow. I just don’t see it after several readings of the statement.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart:
While I have preached and supported I-AOC in the past, and am still not against it, I did a long post from lots of Bible passages that gave two or three issues about which I wonder wrt the Imputation of the Active Obedience:
1. Is there not something odd about going back to the pre-resurrection righteous acts of Christ for something to impute to post resurrection Christians (see: 2 Cor. 5:16, Knowing Christ after the Flesh)
2. In Hebrews there are a number of passages that refer to the present ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in his priestly role as the new Melchizedek. It contrasts the “days of his flesh” with him “living ever to make intercession for us.”
3. If there is righteousness granted to believers (imputed) based upon his ONE ACT of OBEDIENCE, which seems to reference the Cross, then do we need his pre-crucifixion righteousness and merits to be imputed to us in some distinct fashion?
4. I also went through each instance of the greek word for imputation, and found nothing that would imply the imputation of the pre-resurrection/pre-crucifixion righteous acts of Jesus, OTHER THAN his piety being the basis upon which God granted him what he requested in his prayers (this part was all in Hebrews). So, in one sense, Christ’s own piety and obedience was a basis upon which God granted HIS prayers. If there is any imputation there it is to Jesus himself(?). In looking through the instances of logizomai, I stumbled upon 2 Cor. 5:16, in the context of us being New Creation, in Jesus, and wondered at the statement, that some people who knew christ ‘after the flesh’ were now to know him thus no longer. Now, if that has any connection to the Hebrews usage of “in the days of his flesh” – wouldn’t this imply that what we get from Jesus by way of imputation is:
(A) the effect(s) of his one act of Righteousness (which appears not to be his whole life’s righteousness, but the obedience of/unto the cross)-
Rom 5:16-19 “And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Not that the pre-cross righteousness of Christ is insignificant – it is pre-requisite to his ‘one act’ of obedience. He gained maturity through what he suffered, up to and through the Cross.
(B) His present vindication – Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and *raised* for our justification.
(C) His on-going priestly intercession. (Melchizedek, Hebrews passim)
(D) Our union with him, not only covenantally in ‘organic’ terms by way of the indewlling of the Spirit, but also forensically: Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
(E) Our Death to the Law (of Sin and Death), even the Covenant of Works inso far as it was re-published in the Mosaic law – Rom 7:4 “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Note here that, of course, the Active Obedience of Christ is, in effect, ‘imputed’ to us, in that through his active obedience, His death could fulfill the Law’s penalty on our behalf. But, the continual focus of the Epistles is upon his Crucifixion as the basis of our justification, and not directly upon his law keeping. Of course, Rom. 7 is notoriously disputed. But, I note that “living in the flesh” and beng bound by “the old way of the written code” not only may apply to us / or to Paul in some pre-conversion way, but applies to Jesus living under the law (though as the immaculate second Adam – though the first Adam was immaculate until he sinned!). Whatever Rom 7 is really about, the power to change from under the law and in the flesh to alive and in the Spirit, comes from Christ’s law fulfillment and his subsstituionary sacrifice for us.
Of course, this is no exhaustive list, just some ideas that spring to mind.
So, what I don’t really understand is what do you brothers mean when you speak of the imputation of the Active Obedience of Jesus Christ? Even if you spell it out in terms of Merit, there does not appear to be any direct imputation of Christ’s pre-cross actions to his post-resurrection disciples (or to Abraham or David, who are the given examples of imputation in Romans 4).
Wondering in Sewickley…
LikeLike
Excellent. My views pretty well exactly. Glad to see the ‘after the flesh’ interpretation. I see this rarely in Reformed writing/blogs (maybe I need to read more widely).
LikeLike
Anthony, I think my post on IOAC might help clarify what some of us mean (using the words of Machen).
LikeLike
But, you don’t address the questions actually asked. See my post (if it ever gets put up) replying to Machen for details. But, where does the BIble even hint at what we’ve clarified as the I-AOC. Machen does not quote the Bible once. That’s not bad, it just does not show where he’s getting his stuff; and, his stuff is not addressing our (my) questions, but is reaching out to those who need to understand how the work of Jesus fulfills the Law. That’s not in dispute here. IT is the pre-requisite. The BIble, though, emphasizes his present ministry, justification in connection with resurrection/vindication, our death to sin in his death, and our live to righteousness in his RESURRECTION, not his pre-cross righteousness.
LikeLike
In other words, Dr. Hart – do you see a problem with what I’ve said above?
LikeLike
Anthony, where Machen got that stuff was from Warfield, Hodge, Alexander, Witherspoon, the Westminster Standards, Knox and Calvin. The tradition blossomed and evolved over time. Theology never erupts in a vacuum, as if an individual sat down with his or her Bible (where did the text come from after all?) and come up with a creed. I’d argue that Machen’s construction was deeply embedded in Reformed federal theology. I understand that FV contests that. I am dubious about that protestantion if only because of FV’s origins in theonomy, which by my lights seriously misconstrues the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, hence confuses covenant theology.
LikeLike
I don’t think that FV contests that what Machen wrote is deeply embedded in Reformed tradition, and in the development of doctrine. I’m not saying its bad. I can and do talk like that, preach like that, and enjoy reading Hodge, Warfield, the Alexanders, Knox, Calvin and the Westminster Standards.
So, if we (at least I, and I take it Jeff Meyers) is not protesting the “deeply embedded in Reformed federal theology” nature of what Machen had to say (and please, let’s not dispute just who is saying what. I am not contesting it, and have no desire to do so).
What “FV” is doing is mining the insights of Vos and Murray and Gaffin and VanderWall and Van Til, and using different language to say different things because there are some other questions and perspectives out there. They said various things at the AAPC pastor’s conferences, and they came under fire for it. Dr. Morton Smith, at the 2003 conference, didn’t argue that they were not within the Reformed Tradition, just that they were not within the Presbyterian Tradition, as he understood it. Their perspectives were okay within the Continental Reformed tradition. Some FVers want to argue the case that they are not outside, or standing in contradition to, the Westminster Confessional strem, except as read through the Southern style “Spirituality of the Church” grid so prevalent in the PCA. But, again, let’s not argue this question. I wonder what you have against what I’ve said in my posts which raise questions about the nature of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ.
Is his pre-cross/resurrection obedience DIRECTLY imputed to believers, or is his resurrected priestly ministry, where he pleads the blood of the cross, not at least more central. Is Christ’s PRESENT righteousness imputed to us, or his pre-cross works and merits credited to us? I trust you can see that I find a unity (like his Unipersonality as God and man) in his works, but his ONE act of obedience centers upon the Cross, to which the rest is pre-requisite.
Again, the question is not “Does the I-AOC have provenance in the Reformed Tradition,” but Do YOU see a problem with the (mild?) reconstruction I have put upon the matter?
LikeLike
Another thought –
As someone who wrote a wonderful book in appreciation of John Williamson Nevin, it seems ironic to me that your recurring problem with FV (at least one, and the main one) is “Why say anything new? What’s wrong with the old ways?”
Nevin certainly did say some new things! Yes, he went back to Calvin’s doctrine of the real presence, and expanded upon it in terms of some new ways of thinking, influenced both by the depth of the Reformed tradition, and the current thought (organic, neo-realist, post-Hegalian, etc.). He protested, mosly in defense, but certainly offensively as well, against the individualized pietistic and unchurchly readings of his contemporaries (the Puritans as he called them).
While none of us embrace everything Nevin ever said (he teetered towards Swedenborgianism at the last, and on and off for some time; after teetering towards Rome for a time) his project was worthy and important. But, it certainly was not just saying the old things in the old way.
I don’t get it. Can’t you see some similarities with FV and Nevin’s projects?
And, for what its worth, the best critiques of Theonomy are those that arise from post-theonomic thinkers like Jim Jordan. Of course, I say that as a Covenanter sympathizer!
LikeLike
Thanks for the discussion.
I realise this comment is coming as ‘one born out of due time’, however, her it is.
I too am not convinced of IAO. I am dismayed and opposed to the way it is now being touted as evangelical orthodoxy. I doubt if it is even Reformed orthodoxy, though some would make it so.
I agree with J Jordan about the need to read the bible in its own terms, language, and thought patterns. The more we can do so the less differences we may have.
I agree with him too that justification is framed in terms of pardon and Christ risen is integral but a little distinct. I may come from a slightly different standpoint being influenced in this case by early Brethren writers (kiss of death, I know) on this issue.
I would frame the matter like this. Our history is twofold. We have a history united to Adam (an old creation flesh history) and a history united to Christ ( a new creation Spirit history).
My old history in Adam must die. The soul that sins dies. In Adam all die. As far as the Law is concerned (assuming wrongly but for the sake of argument we were all under Law) only one verdict is appopriate for a law-breaker -death. No amount of law-keeping by another will do. The verdict on my disobedience to law is death (as is the verdict on my sin outside of law). In Adam I do not need a law-keeper I need a sacrifice; I do not require a life lived, I require a holy death died.
In Christ this happens. Christ not only dies for me but I die in Christ; my adamic life is finished.
Now I live in a new life. It is a life joined top a risen glorified Christ. It is a life beyond law for law and sin for both are authorities only in the world of flesh. I live in new creation. My life is hid with Christ in God. My relationship with God is way beyond law.
My question is, which life requires a law-keeping righteousness imputed? My old life required a spotless blood sacrifice; my new life is lived in the realm of the Spirit. Which one, I ask again requires IAO?
LikeLike